FAA says tethered operations require authorization [Update]

The Lunar Lander Challenge entrants, and I assume anyone else developing Vertical Takeoff and Landing vehicles, have gotten letters from the FAA stating that tethered operations require its authorization. The letter from George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, claims that the "governing statute does not carve out any exceptions for a launch vehicle attached to a tether". Apparently, the fact that the state of being tethered means that the vehicle is no longer capable of launching anything is irrelevant in regulatory lawyer land.

If the firing lies within the usual amateur rules, then no authorization is needed. Otherwise, they have to apply for launch license, permit, or waiver.

If Blue Origin is doing tethered operations, then Bezos has the deep pockets to challenge this interpretation of the law in court. However, he also has the money and lawyers simply to do the paperwork. Only the little guys will have to deal with this new weight tied to their ankles.

[Update: Will Pomerantz writes that a general waiver covering multiple tether tests will be allowed by the FAA : Tethered Tests and Regulation - The Launch Pad.]

Posted 08/04/08 | 12:09:32 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Space Law and Regs

Comments

I doubt that George would go along with this unless he'd gotten really pressured by legal honchos over there.
Too bad, though.

Posted by Charles Lurio at 08/04/08 13:53:24

While the letter was signed by George, I'm told it was the decision of the FAA lawyers. George is a good guy.

It all goes to the legal definition of Launch.
Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at 08/04/08 14:05:14

This is not completely unreasonable, tethers can break, welds can fail.

Posted by Jason at 08/04/08 15:05:01

Hi Jason,

"This is not completely unreasonable, tethers can break, welds can fail."

Yes, of course things can break but should we need a license to do anything that involves anything that might break? The bolts in a hold-down test could also fail so why not a license for that as well?

This has nothing to do with protecting the uninvolved public from the errant flight of a vehicle during a launch, which was what Congress intended.

As with ITAR and the regulation of the metal table on which sat Bigelow's Genesis payloads, it is a typical case of regulatory lawyers using the most simplistic, absolutist interpretation possible. It always comes down with their side needing to give an official stamp.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 08/04/08 15:37:24

I see that the FAA General Counsel demanded George do this. Historically, FAA has accepted that tethered operations (for example helicopters) is not "flight". My question is why is a staff position dictating policy? I thought that was the job of line management.

General waiver or no, it is a small step to saying that ground test of vehicles (restrained only by a chain or a bolt) are "tethered" too, and thus subject to oversight.

I appreciate that George is trying to find a way to make this regulation less burdensome, and we should applaud that effort, but he should not have to find ways to get around ridiculous decisions.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 08/04/08 16:25:57

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.